Point of Law : It is settled that grant of equivalence is an administrative decision, which is sole discretion of authority concerned and Courts do not have expertize in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The Instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs :

“(i) That the impugned cancellation/rejection letter dated 5.7.2018 i.e. Annexure A-10 may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) That the applicant’s name shall be recommended for appointment to the post of Junior Draftsman (Civil) (Post Code 582) in General BPL category, if the applicant is in a position to be selected in the aforesaid recruitment/selection process on the basis of her merit in her category. Respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to modify the result declared vide Annexure A-9 dated 5.7.2018 for the post of Junior draftsman (Civil) (Post Code 582) if applicant is in a position to qualify in this selection process on the basis of her merit in her category i.e. General (BPL). If during the pendency of this petition respondent No.2 succeed in appointing the person in General (BPL) category for Junior Draftsman (Civil) Post as per the recommendation/result dated 5.7.2018 i.e. Annexure A-9 than appointment of such person shall be quashed and set aside.”

2. The respondent-Commission advertised four posts of Junior Draughtsman (Civil) and essential qualification therein was prescribed as under :

“(i) Matric/Higher Secondary Part-I or its equivalent from a recognized Board/University.

(ii) At least two years certificate course in the trade of Draughtsman-ship or its equivalent from a Polytechnic Institute/an ITI or from an institute duly recognized by the Central/State Government.”

3. The petitioner applied online in General (BPL) Category and as per Rules of Business and Procedure, no documents in support of essential qualifications were required to be attached. All the applicants, who had deposited requisite examination fee were admitted provisionally for the objective type written screening test on the basis of their undertaking/declaration. Condition No.4 of the advertisement provided for important instructions for filling up online application of the Commission, wherein the candidates were required to ensure their eligibility, age, experience, if any, before applying for the advertised posts so as to avoid rejection at later stage. The petitioner after qualifying the objective type written test was shortlisted for further selection process/15 marks evaluation and was asked to submit requisite certificates/documents/testimonials in support of her claim made in the application form as well as on prescribed parameters at the time of counselling/evaluation, which was held on 22.6.2018. The petitioner at the time of counselling produced diploma in Civil Engineering in support of two years course in the trade of draughtsman-ship or its equivalent from a polytechnic institute/an ITI or from an institute duly recognized by the Central/State Government, as such, her candidature was rejected by the Commission, constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition.

4. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner is at great-pain to argue that the syllabus of draughtsman-ship trade of ITI is covered in the subject of Diploma in Civil Engineering, mainly in the subjects applied Mechanics, Maths, Engineering Drawing, General Workshop Practice, Building Construction, Building Material, Fluid Mechanics, Surveying, Building Drawing, Concrete Technology, Water Supply And Waste Water Engineering, Surveying, RC, Transportation Engineering, Irrigation Design and Drawing Quantity Surveying Aand Soil & Foundation Engineering. He further argued that topics, which were taught in ITI draughtsman-ship trade are those topics, which otherwise have been taught in the Polytechnic Diploma of Civil Engineering in the subject mentioned above and, therefore, should be treated as an equivalent subject.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, learned counsel for the Commission argued that since the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification prescribed in the R & P Rues, which was mentioned in the advert